J MANIKYAM CHETTY DIED Vs. J PADMANABHA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, passed in LA. No.475/99 in O.S. No.39/94, dated 20-7-2000, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to come on record as the legal heir of the plaintiff on the basis of a registered Will executed by the deceased plaintiff, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) I have gone through the order under challenge. The Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner is not the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff as she had two daughters and one son but they did not choose to come forward to get themselves impleaded as party respondents in the above suit. The learned Judge also extracted Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC without giving any reasons as to how the application is not maintainable.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in T.V. Narayana vs. Venkata Subbamma1 vehemently contended that unless the petitioner obtained probate he cannot get himself impleaded as party to the pending proceedings. I have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court. Their Lordships were considering the question whether the legatee who lost the original Will is entitled to adduce secondary evidence to prove the alleged Will. Their Lordships observed that whatever rights that were accrued to late Venkata Subabamma will accrue to the person who comes on record as her legal representative. At this stage, their Lordships observed thus: